If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Great ruling on the Heller case.:D....... now off to DU to watch some heads explode!

:D

This is awesome news!!! I may actually join you.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

This ruling is not anywhere as good as it could be. At the end of the day all this rulling says is that we are only guaranteed to be able to keep weapons the politicians don't claim are unusually dangerous and only then if we keep them at home.

Those were not covered by this lawsuit. Those issue CAN now be brought before the court. Thank GOD we had Bush instead of Gore or Kerry the last few years.

Some of the things coming out of Washington just leave me dumbfounded. The following dissent by Breyer is a real jewel.Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So you have no constitutional right to protect yourself, your family or home even though you may live in a crime ridden neighborhood. And to think, we pay him almost 200K/yr for those words of wisdom.

We aren't out of the woods net....not for many generations... Notice how Scalia & Co. respected the wishes of the DoJ and left the door wide open for "resonable" regulation. Basically, the whole ruling is summed up by: Banning weapons that are 'in common use' (i.e. weapons that aren't banned) is a big no-no. Banning weapons that are believed to be 'military only' (a.k.a 'assault rilfles') is peachy keen.

So sure, you can own a handgun, a bolt action sporting rifle, a shotgun, but not an AR-15? What about an AK47 or an SKS?

We aren't out of the woods net....not for many generations... Notice how Scalia & Co. respected the wishes of the DoJ and left the door wide open for "resonable" regulation. Basically, the whole ruling is summed up by: Banning weapons that are 'in common use' (i.e. weapons that aren't banned) is a big no-no. Banning weapons that are believed to be 'military only' (a.k.a 'assault rilfles') is peachy keen.

So sure, you can own a handgun, a bolt action sporting rifle, a shotgun, but not an AR-15? What about an AK47 or an SKS?

Yeah, we a small battle, we haven't won the war.

You are quite right here John, but if we had lost this, it would have been devastating.

This ruling is not anywhere as good as it could be. At the end of the day all this rulling says is that we are only guaranteed to be able to keep weapons the politicians don't claim are unusually dangerous and only then if we keep them at home.

It's a little more than that really. It also affirms that the 2nd Amendment in fact protects an individual right and not a collective right. That debate has been raging my entire life, and now it's settled once and for all. That means outright bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns are unconstitutional.

What has yet to be decided is if "reasonable restrictions" can include banning of semi-auto rifles and handguns, magazine capacity limits, "sniper rifles", etc. In this respect the ruling does little to help us. The way I read it, a state could ban everything but single shot .22 LR handguns and rifles and still be within the limits of this ruling.

It will take DC, SF or Chicago passing some goofy law saying you can only own a single shot .22 handgun and someone getting pinched with a 9mm then taking it back to the SCOTUS to get a ruling. That means sometime by the time my son is 40 years old we might get another more meaningful ruling.

It will take DC, SF or Chicago passing some goofy law saying you can only own a single shot .22 handgun and someone getting pinched with a 9mm then taking it back to the SCOTUS to get a ruling. That means sometime by the time my son is 40 years old we might get another more meaningful ruling.

According to this ruling, it would have to be DC. States do not have to abide by the 2nd amendment. It has not been read to apply to them. That is the issue that will be decided if the case in Chicago or San Francisco makes it up to the Supreme Court.

Although I think that's a poor strategy. The NRA should have asked a town to enact a gun ban exactly mirroring the DC gun ban, so that the only issue before the Supreme Court would be incorporation of the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, the Court might find some way to distinguish a San Francisco or Chicago case from Heller, leaving us back where we started.

Of course, that's legal strategy, and sometimes you don't always get what you want.

Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District's gun ban, leaders of the National Rifle Association began work on legal challenges against gun restrictions in Chicago and San Francisco, while gun-control groups said the decision would only strengthen their efforts.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which fought in support of the city's handgun ban, predicted that the decision would "embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws." "

With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety," he said.

The NRA and Gun Owners of America both say they're planning to use the ruling as a springboard to challenge state and local laws across the country.

"Certainly things like the Chicago handgun ban, which is very similar to what Washington, D.C., had, those are the kind of things we would want to look at," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America. "We're definitely going to be in the middle of all of that."

Mr. Pratt also noted comments by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that the decision "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."